Well like I said I don't particularly but into it. But whatver you think about that. Scott was a key creative force in the film and the quite form him did suggest his take on the film was different to the genearrly accepted one. As for diluting the fear factor I don't know about others but for me it does reduce it somewhat if I look at things in a analytical way. Isn't that one of the ways to treat a phobia ?

But Scott, as important a factor he was for that film, did not exactly write the entire script nor create the designs. Even on his part, it would be bizarre that he didn't accept it since he still kept none other than HR Giger's designs on the film, most of Bannon's script and even repeated some of the sexuality and pregnancy in Prometheus. His viewing of it being "primal fear" and it being "sex" don't exactly contradict each other in any way either, Scott just keeps it to an abstraction that possibly means nothing by the end of it.

Also, personally I still can't see it how it reduces the fear in Alien. Specifying a fear does not destroy and it is as far away from being analytical as I am from the Andromeda Galaxy. This isn't explaining why sexuality can be fearsome, but showing that it can be fearsome.

quote:

But in order to see them you'd have to have a familiarity with that area of history and / or Dickens' novel which not everyone has. How you see the allegory re terroism depends again on your own knowledge of current events or practices like rendition. Like I say your interpretation of what is on screen is informed by what you know of the world and your own beliefs and values. It can alos be informed by those of others that you have read or heard.

But my interpretation is still stronger than others because the film is making not just winks but direct references to it. Juno Temple saying that everything belongs to everyone now is a direct reference to the revolutions. Bruce Wayne's condition in TDK is a direct reference to that of a character in A Tale of two Cities. Then, that is reinforced with the Nolans saying "Yes that's what we did".

Not every interpretation is great and not every interpretation is bad, with the most abstract films (say, something by Bresson) it can become almost impossible to see which is true, but there are those who thanks to having more knowledge on the material the film is dealing with and how it was made, or by reading interpretations which seem closer to what the film is doing and seems on the right track, may be much stronger than others. Not all interpretations are right. The Jaws one mentioned here is a case of an interpretation being nonsense because there is nothing in the film to properly suggest that and nothing in any of the craftsmen work involved in Jaws that shows that they ever did that shit in that way. With Alien, that differs greatly.

quote:

Which is kind of the point I'm making. If film is directly referencing something or cutting out subtext and going straight for text then fair enough it can be taken at face value but it does take a bit of a stretch to find such social or political allegory in Jaws .

That's true with Jaws, I agree, but with Alien it comes out as rather different, the evidence to "Alien is playing around with fears of pregnancy and sex" are far stronger than "Jaws is a political allegory".

To clairfy I onlyused that quot from Scott in resposne to Olaf's quite from. n O'Bannon,which he used to show that there was a deliberate intent by the writer of Alien (although the discussion was originally about the sequel anyway) I'm not saying Scott's opinion is definitive or even right - I just pointed out that's what he said.

As for the TDKR business - yes that was a deliberate thing on Nolan's part but agian you'd have to familiar with Dickens' work to see the referenc even if you know they're there. You could see pararells between a film and some other previous work that are entirely coincidental and thus think that the latter is referencing the former, where in fact the creator nver intended that.

You can easily make the case that The Hunger Gamesis a spin on Battle Royale (some might even say ripoff) but Suzanne Collins says she had never heard of BR when she wrote it. Taking her at her word the similarites are purely coincidental so any assertion that HG is influenced by or referencing BR would be erroneous.

Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005 From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: Scruffybobby

Well like I said I don't particularly but into it. But whatver you think about that. Scott was a key creative force in the film and the quite form him did suggest his take on the film was different to the genearrly accepted one. As for diluting the fear factor I don't know about others but for me it does reduce it somewhat if I look at things in a analytical way. Isn't that one of the ways to treat a phobia ?

But Scott, as important a factor he was for that film, did not exactly write the entire script nor create the designs. Even on his part, it would be bizarre that he didn't accept it since he still kept none other than HR Giger's designs on the film, most of Bannon's script and even repeated some of the sexuality and pregnancy in Prometheus. His viewing of it being "primal fear" and it being "sex" don't exactly contradict each other in any way either, Scott just keeps it to an abstraction that possibly means nothing by the end of it.

Also, personally I still can't see it how it reduces the fear in Alien. Specifying a fear does not destroy and it is as far away from being analytical as I am from the Andromeda Galaxy. This isn't explaining why sexuality can be fearsome, but showing that it can be fearsome.

quote:

But in order to see them you'd have to have a familiarity with that area of history and / or Dickens' novel which not everyone has. How you see the allegory re terroism depends again on your own knowledge of current events or practices like rendition. Like I say your interpretation of what is on screen is informed by what you know of the world and your own beliefs and values. It can alos be informed by those of others that you have read or heard.

But my interpretation is still stronger than others because the film is making not just winks but direct references to it. Juno Temple saying that everything belongs to everyone now is a direct reference to the revolutions. Bruce Wayne's condition in TDK is a direct reference to that of a character in A Tale of two Cities. Then, that is reinforced with the Nolans saying "Yes that's what we did".

Not every interpretation is great and not every interpretation is bad, with the most abstract films (say, something by Bresson) it can become almost impossible to see which is true, but there are those who thanks to having more knowledge on the material the film is dealing with and how it was made, or by reading interpretations which seem closer to what the film is doing and seems on the right track, may be much stronger than others. Not all interpretations are right. The Jaws one mentioned here is a case of an interpretation being nonsense because there is nothing in the film to properly suggest that and nothing in any of the craftsmen work involved in Jaws that shows that they ever did that shit in that way. With Alien, that differs greatly.

quote:

Which is kind of the point I'm making. If film is directly referencing something or cutting out subtext and going straight for text then fair enough it can be taken at face value but it does take a bit of a stretch to find such social or political allegory in Jaws .

That's true with Jaws, I agree, but with Alien it comes out as rather different, the evidence to "Alien is playing around with fears of pregnancy and sex" are far stronger than "Jaws is a political allegory".

To clairfy I onlyused that quot from Scott in resposne to Olaf's quite from. n O'Bannon,which he used to show that there was a deliberate intent by the writer of Alien (although the discussion was originally about the sequel anyway) I'm not saying Scott's opinion is definitive or even right - I just pointed out that's what he said.

I'm a bit confused if we're still talking about uncertainty regarding the sexual under(/over)tones in AlieN - if that uncertainty is still there, it is talked about (and confirmed) at length and depth by Scott, O'Bannon, Ron Shusett and, I think, David Giler in at least one of the docs on the DVD/blu ray (it might also be discussed in one of the commentaries, but I can't remember for sure). As in - yes, those sexual under(/over)tones are there and were put into the film on purpose and considered by all of the creative peeps involved.

Posts: 4662
Joined: 6/10/2005 From: A breaking rope bridge in the middle of the jungle

quote:

ORIGINAL: chris kilby admittedly, I've never read The Godfather.)

It's not quite as bad or as ham fisted as Jaws, but it's still a bit of a soap opera, and it's also, relatively, as overlong as Jaws. It's certainly not a case of "if you've seen the film, you MUST read the book". Coppola proved himself to be an excellent editor and re-interpreter of Puso's words and ideas, just as Carl Gottlieb and Spielberg knew what of Benchley's to throw away and what to keep.

In the case of Jaws, whilst we're on the subject, I think the best example of the major differences between book and film centre around the whole small-town conspiracy of keeping the beaches open. In the book there are ENDLESS and pointless discussions between the mayor and the town aldermen (which, from memory, take up at least fifty pages), whilst in the film that whole sub-plot is succinctly and successfully boiled down to "Amity is a summer town. We NEED summer dollars".

As for the TDKR business - yes that was a deliberate thing on Nolan's part but agian you'd have to familiar with Dickens' work to see the referenc even if you know they're there. You could see pararells between a film and some other previous work that are entirely coincidental and thus think that the latter is referencing the former, where in fact the creator nver intended that.

I see what you're saying, but that's why some interpretations are stronger than others. Had I not known of Dicken's work, then I wouldn't have seen it, but others did notice it and said it and provided strong links which have been supported. Hence, their interpretation would be better than my more ignorant one.

quote:

You can easily make the case that The Hunger Games is a spin on Battle Royale (some might even say ripoff) but Suzanne Collins says she had never heard of BR when she wrote it. Taking her at her word the similarites are purely coincidental so any assertion that HG is influenced by or referencing BR would be erroneous.

I think at best that would be an influence that shares both themes. Since Collins said she never read it and she's right in saying the influence goes back to Greek Mythology, I would drop that theory that THG is a BR rip-off.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978 There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.